OlsonOnline

Hypocrisy

Or more aptly, in the case of Corbett School District Superintendent Bob Dunton, a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Dunton, who has proposed a charter school for Corbett in order to boost enrollment, is "irked" that neighboring districts, namely Reynolds and Gresham, are offended by the proposal.  He calls the objections unethical:

"I wasn't going to let them take kids who want to be here, whose parents want them to be here," ... Dunton said. "Kids are not a means to an end, to financially support you as a district. That is unethical."

But that's precisely what Dunton's charter school proposal is, a "means to an end, to financially support" the Corbett School District.  He said so:

"...Dunton said he feared his 10-year quest to make the 700-student district a success would stall if schools in Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale and east Portland stopped allowing their students to transfer to Corbett."

Voila!  A K-12 Charter Academy that will merely mimic the programs up and running in the existing K-12 school.  Corbett already relies on transfers for a quarter of its enrollment.  The new charter will allow it to increase enrollment by an additional 300 students, each bringing in about $5K to district coffers.

The best part of the charter plan is that state law allows any student to enroll in a charter school --it doesn't matter where they live.

That's clearly a surefire financial "means to an end". 

Supposedly Corbett offers a superior learning environment to neighboring districts.  Maybe so.

But that's not so surprising given Corbett's small size and its lilly white demographics.  According to the Oregon Department of Education, 92% of its 700 students are white.

That will go a long way toward boosting a school's reputation.

The truth about taxes in Oregon

From Sunday's Oregonian:

"Oregon businesses will continue to enjoy one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation even after the Legislature voted last week to raise their taxes."

That doesn't matter to Republicans who call any business tax increase a "job killer."  Or to Democrats like Mark Hass who howled that the tax increases should be temporary.

Temporary?  That simply means that in short time, the regressive Oregon tax code would revert to this:

"...individuals now carry nearly two-thirds of the state and local tax burden."

It wasn't that long ago that the income tax, Oregon's primary revenue source, was split about evenly between businesses and individuals.

And remember this:  poor Oregonians pay a higher share of their income in total taxes than the richest Oregonians.  That's the very definition of a regressive tax code.

When the anti-taxers fume about an overhaul of Oregon's system of taxation, what they're really talking about is making the system even more regressive than it already is.  Tax reform to them means a sales tax --the most regressive of taxes-- and a cut in the income tax --the most progressive of taxes, especially if it's done right. 

The legislature's move to raise the marginal tax rate on couples making more than $250,000 was a step in the right direction, a step toward tax fairness. 

*************************************

The mantra of the anti-taxers, like Russ Walker's FreedomWorks Oregon, is this:

"Only by reducing taxes and regulations, and making Oregon a more business-friendly state can we achieve the goal of real economic growth, and real prosperity for Oregonians."

"Only by reducing taxes... ."  That worked well under Reagan and Dubya, right?  Well, maybe not so much.  Here's a comment from a recent Blue Oregon post on taxes in Oregon:

"Yes, cutting taxes always results in drops in unemployment. I mean, look at 1982, after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. The national unemployment fell from 7.6% to 9.7%.

"And look at 2002 after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, then the unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 5.8%.

"All I can say is, God save us from any similar drops in unemployment."

It's nice to have those stats at your finger tips.  But then again, all you have to do is read the newspaper to realize how disastrous Republican tax and economic policies have been.

***********************************

And then there's the O's Susan Nielsen throwing fuel on the anti-tax fire that still burns hot in Oregon.  Here are some comments from her latest column:

"Democrats also are pushing their luck on taxes."

"They open Democrats to criticism that they're too eager to confiscate people's earnings. They also make the Democratic party (not to mention the state itself) less attractive to doctors, lawyers, potential business recruits and other professionals who are already worried about higher federal taxes -- and who get wet whenever anyone decides to 'soak the rich.' "

I probably don't need to remind you that Nielsen is on the editorial board of Oregon's largest daily newspaper.  Her Sunday column certainly found favor with the rabid right.

Just read the comments.

Lots of Dems, little progress

From Chuck Sheketoff's op-ed in today's Oregonian recommending the suspension of Measure 57 to help solve Oregon's budget problem:

"Oregon already tops all states in terms of the share of general fund dollars devoted to putting people behind bars, and it spends more on prisons than on higher education -- one of only four states in the nation to do so."

Meanwhile Steve Duin writes that Democrats in the Oregon legislature are offering little more than a "tepid response" to the budget crisis.  They've done nothing about the "kicker", failed to raise beer taxes, and have only talked about the possibility of raising much-needed revenue from corporations and wealthy individuals.

And prisons?  Legislators are

"...planning to cut Healthy Start of Oregon by more than twice as much (on a percentage basis) as they're cutting the Department of Corrections... ."

Sheketoff warns cuts to education and the social safety net may backfire:

"One of the bitterest ironies of Measure 57 is that, if implemented, it may end up making Oregonians less safe over the long run."

Let's see.  Oregon has a Democratic Governor and Democratic majorities in both the state House and Senate.  Haven't we been told --repeatedly-- that if we liberals only elect more Democrats to public office, our problems will be solved?

That brings me to Barack Obama and health care.  As a state legislator he pronounced:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.

"We may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

"We" means Democrats.  Well, the President is a Democrat, and both the House and the Senate have been "taken back", overwhelmingly, by the Dems.  Just like in Oregon.

So what's standing in the way of implementing a single payer system of national health care?  The Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, along with scores of other Congressional Dems in thrall to the private health care industry

There's a lesson to be learned there by all partisan Democrats. 

More Wingard

(Again thanks to Ken Libby.)

Wingard denies global warming with a "clever" House floor speech.



You may be wondering how Wingard was elected to the state legislature. Well, he wasn't, at least not initially. He was appointed by the Washington County Commission in a trumped up proceeding that made a mockery of the democratic process.

A month later he ran as an incumbent and squeaked by with less that half the vote.

Now Rep. Wingard is doing his libertarian best to push school choice (the Rose Friedman Educational Opportunity Tax Credit Act) --and charter schools-- through the legislature.

Why we need Steve Novick as our next governor

We need Steve Novick as our next governor for one compelling reason:

Unlike current Governor Ted Kulongoski, Novick is not averse to increasing taxes.  Oregon hasn't raised sufficient revenue to run its programs for decades --not for schools, for health care, or for public safety.  Steve Novick is just the man to fix that.

Two recent pieces he's written illustrate that point.

The first is a sort of tongue-in-cheek Oregonian op-ed entitled "Taxes and televsion --more bang for your buck!"  In the piece, Novick lists the top ten television shows "paid for by your tax dollars."  Here's an example:

"ER":  A grim, determined group of medical professionals in a County hospital fight to save the lives of their patients, many of whom are poor and/or old and whose bills are paid by Medicare and Medicaid. Paid for by County property taxes and your Federal income and FICA tax dollars, with Medicaid matching funds provided by the State.

The second is a post on Blue Oregon criticizing comments made by Allen Alley, a potential Republican gubernatorial candidate.  What does Novick find suspect?

"Mr. Alley should be aware that it is thoroughly misleading to imply that a significant portion of Oregon tax dollars are ‘redistributed’ to ‘failing businesses and individuals.’  The largest portion of Oregon tax dollars is spent on public schools. Does Mr. Alley regard Oregon’s students and teachers as ‘failing’?  Another large portion is spent on health care for poor children and families and long-term care for seniors and people with disabilities.  Does Mr. Alley consider poor children and families without health insurance, and seniors and people with disabilities who cannot afford long-term care, to be ‘failures’?"

That's the kind of campaign we can expect Novick to run against Alley or any other tax-bashing Republican candidate for governor of Oregon.  (Or weak-kneed Democrat, for that matter.)

Novick is "da man" to lead Oregon as its next governor.

Hawaii's beaches? Overrated!

They're small, tiny in fact, by Oregon standards.  They're usually crowded.  And the beach sand is typically coarse if not downright gravelly.   Beaches are often hard to find.  Unless you're lucky, you have to drive some distance to get to one.

I've been to three of the Hawaiian Islands --Kaua'i, Maui, and, on this last trip, to the Big One.  As far as beaches go, that's the order in which they rank.

Of course the water is warm.  Not like the Caribbean, but a lot warmer than the cold Pacific waters off Oregon's coast.  And the weather, as one would expect in a tropical latitude, is conducive to lounging in the sand.  Maybe that's why some Hawaiian beaches are rated America's best.  

I will say that Kua Bay, where we spent three of our five "beach" days, had sand remarkably similar to the typical Oregon beach, fine and light in color.  Good swimming, too, once you breach the wall of boogie boarders that usually stretch from one end of the beach to the other.

As I said, Hawaiian beaches are small.  One exception is Polihale Beach, Kaua'i, a huge beach with a wild surf, and remote enough so that it doesn't attract crowds.  For my money, it's the best beach in the Islands.

But best beach?  Arcadia Beach in Oregon, just south of Cannon Beach. Wonderful beach with tide pools and a rock outcropping that protects you from the wind.  And if you don't mind cold water, a great place to frolic in the waves.

The O's Rick Attig drinks merit pay Kool-Aid

From Rick Attig's blog:

"As refreshing as it was to hear President Obama, in his first major speech on education, call for teacher merit pay, a longer school year, more charter schools and reducing the dropout rate, it was discouraging to compare the president's rhetoric with the reality in Oregon.

"Here, with the teachers' union powerful grip on the state's Democratic majority in Salem, there is no serious discussion about merit pay or expanding charter schools."

That eerily echoes Betsy Hammond's side bar in yesterday's O, the one where she referred to Oregon voters as "swayed by expensive campaigns by the Oregon Education Association" in their rejection of "pay for performance" ballot measures.  How does she know if voters were "swayed"?  Maybe they're just smart.

Teacher --and union-- scapegoating for the supposed "failure" of public schools has become all too common a theme in the media. 

It's good to read, in that same sidebar, that Washington is one of the few states that doesn't allow any charter schools.  But then again, according to Hammond, that's all due to "opposition from the state teachers' union."

Here's a question for Attig:  If the teachers' union in Oregon has such a powerful grip on state legislators, why does Oregon allow charter schools?

Portland's 'Million Dollar Baby' gets even richer in retirement

Progressive evangelical preacher, Jim Wallis, writes about the moral dimensions of economic policy.  In defending the Employee Free Choice Act, Wallis invokes memories of his father --a negotiator for Detroit Edison-- and argues that the EFCA levels the playing field between employer and employee:

"And the great chasm that has now grown between CEO salaries and that of average workers, I know, would have appalled and offended my father."

The chasm is huge. 

"In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies made 24 times a worker's pay-by 2004, CEOs earned 431 times the pay of an average worker. ...  While CEO pay continues to increase at rates far exceeding inflation, wages for the vast majority of American workers have failed to keep up with rising prices.  In fact, real wages for the 90% of Americans who earn under $92,000 a year have actually fallen since 2001."

Enter Portland's own "million dollar baby", retiring PGE CEO, Peggy Fowler.  Even she seems embarrassed by --and defensive of-- the generous terms of her golden parachute.  "It pales," she said, in comparison to the bounty bestowed on her predecessor.  Besides that, she argues, "analysts" demand competitive pay for the CEO's of "performing" companies."

Maybe so.  But who has PGE been "performing" for?  Not it's stockholders, who have seen the value of their stock drop 40% since the company went public.  Not ratepayers, either.  According to Bob Jenks of the Citizen's Utility Board,

"PGE already has among the highest electric rates of any utility in the region, he said. It earned more than its allowed rate of return in 2007, and the Oregon Public Utility Commission granted the utility a 7.6 percent increase in 2008."

In reality, says Jenks, we --the ratepayers-- have been "paying Peggy to build up her retirement."

Let's say the average hourly wage for PGE workers is $40, meaning an annual income of $83K.  (It isn't, of course, even for the unionized segment of the workforce.  This website for PGE  customer technical services pegs it hourly pay at $16.72 ...with no benefits.)  But anyway, say you did make that $83K a year, probably as a skilled electrician/lineman with years of experience.  

That's still only about a tenth of what Peggy Fowler is going to make in retirement.

Big thinking from Chalkboard's Sue Hildick

The Chalkboard Project's Sue Hildick says that, in these perilous economic times, schools "...need to be alert for every efficiency."

What sort of efficiency?  Well, how about saving $20 million on more efficient student busing?  Sounds good, eh? 

Of course that's an efficiency --the $20 million-- for every K-12 district in the state.  When you stop to consider that in 2006-2007, according to the Chalkboard's own site, total spending on K-12 schools was $4,765,572,498 --that's 4.7 billion dollars-- then the $20 million busing efficiency seems like pretty small potatoes. 

Chump change, in fact.   According to my math (go ahead and double check it, if you must) that works out to about .4  percent of the total amount Oregon spends on K-12 schools each year.  Or to put it another way, if Hildick and other wasteful spending watchdogs found 250 such examples of inefficient school spending, kids could go to school at absolutely no taxpayer expense. 

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has a better idea --teachers teaching for free.  If teachers were willing to teach without pay for an entire year, Oregon's educational budget could be slashed by 60 or 70 percent.

That's a helluva lot better than .4 percent.

But then there's this whole problem of economic stimulus, which President Obama says happens when the government spends money.  Not paying bus drivers --or teachers-- sounds like a great idea until you factor in the stimulus effect. 

I mean, how much can you goose the economy if you have no money to spend? 

Slow learner

At the last school board meeting, David Wynde warned that

"...in real terms, we have cut the level of funding for K-12 education in this state for almost two decades."

He went on to say that school budgets are being reduced from a "grossly inadequate level of funding."

That's an admirable acknowledgment. And oh so true.

Flash back to 2003, when Wynde first ran for the school board with the backing and blessing of numerous local movers and shakers.  His platform?

"Responsible financial management that our schools need."

Very little, if anything, was said about the "grossly inadequate level of funding" for schools from the state by either Wynde or any of the other winning candidates that year, despite clear evidence of underfunding in the twelve years since the passage of Measure 5.

That same year, 2003, I also ran for the school board.  The first plank of my campaign platform was this:

"I support  --adequate funding for schools."

The "responsible financial management" advocated by Wynde and other board members included the hasty closure of several neighborhood schools, a move which saved the district little money and alienated many parents.

(Wynde ran for re-election in 2007.  His Voters Pamphlet statement still said nothing about funding.  He promised instead a "commitment to equity and opportunity."  That promise has yet to yield any visible results.)